Yeovil Town very rarely divulge detailed information concerning their players wages and costs, and certainly not at an individual level. Usually when such deals are done, they stay 'undisclosed' or just not mentioned. It's therefore a little unexpected that Chairman John Fry has divulged the costs associated with former Fulham loanee Stephen Arthurworrey, who has since been released by the Cottagers this summer, and so is on the market as a free agent.

Arthurworrey had two loan spells with the Glovers - one initiated by Gary Johnson during the 2014-15 season that proved to be a significant success, making 33 appearances and scoring two goals. Even though the Glovers were ultimately relegated, his performances had certainly stood out. He was then re-recruited by Paul Sturrock for the start of the 2015-16 season, on what was a season-long loan, although the London press reported at the time that it had a break clause inserted that could be invoked during the January transfer window.

The central defender, who at the time of his second loan was 20 years old, made 17 appearances, scoring one goal, but that spell was ended rather abruptedly. In the October 20th home match against Mansfield Town, he had to be substituted 78 minutes into that fixture, and a week later a scan made clear that was going to be the end of his football for the 2015-16 season. Up until that point, he hadn't missed a single minute of football, although the fact that his right leg was strapped up for the match against the Stags that night suggested there was a weakness there just before he dropped out of the side.

A serious knee injury was diagnosed, and Arthurworrey was sent back to Fulham for treatment, and has not kicked a football since. The Western Gazette have reported the costs of his time with the Glovers as £90,000, with Mr Fry indirectly attributed to providing that value. There's no quotes from the Glovers Chairman to qualify that value, but the paper states that the costs relate to the player's wages during his loan spell as well as medical bills associated with his injury.

There is no breakdown of that figure to determine how such costs were so high. Back in 2006, the Independent newspaper published a set of wage statistics for footballers that ranged from the Premier League, into League Two, providing detail on how those figures varied. For example, the average wage of a Championship footballer at that time was £195,750, but for a 20 year old it was £43,700, with the higher wages applicable to older players who would peak in their earnings around the age of 30 years old. In League Two, the average wage was £49,600 with a 20 year old earning an average of £16,000.

Since then, there's not been an aged-based breakdown of players wages below Premier League, but general average figures have been published - according to the Sporting Intelligence website, by 2009-10, Championship wages had risen slightly to £211,068 (from £195,750 in 2005-06) whilst in League Two there had been a slight drop to £38,844 (down from £49,600) with the most likely explanation for the latter drop being the introduction of the SCMP (aka wage capping) regulations - the introduction of the Financial Fair Play regulations only kicked in a few years ago.

Thus whilst no data is available for a 20 year old Championship or League Two player, uniform inflation would suggest that Arthurworrey's wages in 2015-16 at Fulham will have been roughly in the region of half of the £90,000 quoted - e.g. £45,000. Keeping the mathematics easy would then suggest that for the quoted costs to be true, then Arthurworrey's medical bill would also have needed to be in the region of £45,000.

Yeovil Town and Fulham never disclosed the precise problem that Arthurworrey had with his knee. However, for one of the more complex operations - a cruciate knee ligament repair that would have kept him out of action for the length of time he was sat out for, private medical London costs for Harley Street are given an "indicative price range of between £3,675 and £6,400" for such an operation. Thereafter the club's or Fulham's own medical teams would largely take over the rehabilitation of the player, bar a few return visits to the specialist for a check-up - indicative costs are for £250 per visit. All of this assumes a patient coming into surgery with no private medical insurance at all.

It's therefore hard to ratify the £90,000 figure - either Arthurworrey's wages were far higher than an average 20 year old Championship player, or there is a huge gap in the costs claimed. Usual practice is for Premier League and Championship clubs to only pay a proportion of a player's wages during his loan spell with a lower league club, given they are also getting a benefit from their player getting first team experience, so in most cases, the amount a League Two club would pay for such a loan would be somewhere between the average League Two wage, and the average Championship wage. If a loan player always cost the full Premier League or Championship wage, then there would be little point in a League Two club pursuing the loan system as a method of getting 'cheap' players - they'd be better off paying for a permanent signing.

Another aspect concerns the circumstances in which Arthurworrey came to Huish Park. His loan deal was announced on July 1st 2015, on the same day that Fulham announced that they had extended his contract by a twelve month period. So the Glovers were theoretically taking him for the full length of his Fulham deal, on the day he signed that deal with his parent club. If they were also - as part of the loan contract arrangement - taking on full liability for his medical bills, then the Glovers were taking on both the full contract term and the full contract liability for his well-being. Yet Fulham were holding his underlying playing registration during that time, meaning that if Arthurworrey had turned out to be a superstar that season, then Fulham would have profitted. Yet with the Glovers apparently taking on all financial commitment and liability, then they were effectively giving Fulham a free ticket on the National Lottery.

Finally, it is also worth noting that at the time Arthurworrey joined the club, the West London press indicated that although the deal was for a full season loan, that there was a break clause inserted into the deal, allowing Fulham the right to recall him in the January 2016 window. If that break clause was not a two-way clause, and that the Glovers could not return him to Craven Cottage, as suggested, then this would be an astonishingly lopsided agreement - Fulham could recall him if he was good, but the Glovers couldn't return him if he dropped out of the side. Again, all of the risk associated with the deal would have been on one party only.

Whatever the true costs of Arthurworrey's time with Yeovil Town, if the club had to cover him for both wages and medical needs, then contractually speaking the deal was closer to the costs of a permanent signing than a loan agreement. The same would apply to Kevin Dawson's and Simon Gillett's lengthy injuries that required operations and lengthy rehabilitation, so it is unusual that the Glovers Chairman has singled out the Fulham loanee's situation. If loan agreements are that costly, then why are the club pursuing it as a strategy, given that there is no sell-on value for a loan player. Presumption has always been that the loan system has provided a benefit both ways - that the club get a younger player on the cheap, with the ultimate well-being and contractual liability being consumed by their parent club. In return, they get a chance for a player to be developed in a first team environment.

If the claims are that a player of Arthurworrey's age can cost as much as £90,000, then with the Emergency Loan system being scrapped, and clubs having to commit to a minimum of half a season for each deal, the Glovers might want to rethink that strategy and bring in permanent signings that can add value.

However, that would go against the common consensus view given out by Football League managers in general, which is why either that Arthurworrey deal would have to be either a monumentally badly negotiated deal, or for the £90,000 costs to be questionable. During the 2014-15 season, John Fry quoted the club's League One playing budget as £1.3 million - that sort of a cost would only allow for 14 players against that playing budget, and with the club now operating in League Two, you can guarantee that budget would have been reduced further for the 2015-16 season just gone.

One possible explanation could be that Sturrock was given a budget and presumably the power to use it as he saw fit. If these were the terms that Fulham dictated and Sturrock valued the player so much, blame could be placed with him just as much and possibly more than John Fry. I certainly don't think that this example (factually correct or maybe with a degree of exaggeration) is a reason to discard the loan system, particularly with last year's starlets of Roberts and especially Walsh (the best young player I have ever seen with YTFC bar none) being such shining examples of when it does work very well for us.
17/06/2016 09:36:11

Mike Harris said ...

I think the 90K would have to include the cost of hiring a replacement.
17/06/2016 10:47:15

Badger said ...

Simon - I deliberately steered clear of any 'blame' over the issue for multiple reasons. Firstly injuries can often be unfortunate and random and so end up having to be swallowed as an overhead in terms of any playing budget. Secondly, there is the market conditions - if what Fulham was asking for was the market going rate for such a player, then that's what you're stuck with. I was more interested in testing the costs behind such a £90,000 figure, how reasonable it sounded. However, if we are to start to play the 'blame' game, then there is a thing called corporate governance. Directors and a CEO are there to lay down such policy and to enforce it, to ensure that managers below them work within certain boundaries. If I want to spend above X amount, I have to go to the next person up in my organisation. If I want to spend above XX amount, then I have to go to my director for sign-off. If you are allowing a manager to take excessive risk inappropriate to his position, then you've got your corporate governance wrong. After all, Sturrock was fired on December 1st, yet the corporate liability stayed beyond that period. Remember, the exact same thing happened with Andy Williams and his cruciate knee ligament injury whilst he was on loan from Swindon under another manager, so the risks are known. You either accept those risks as part of the market that you're in, or you bring in governance to control it. Arthurworrey had a decent fitness record, so this wasn't an easily predictable event, and so would have to fall under the generic risks of putting football players onto a contract.

Mike - very very possible - someone else brought that up. That may be the case, as when we've had figures like this put about before, like Pablo Bastianini, it eventually transpired that the figure quoted wasn't the "transfer fee" that had been misquoted, but the cost of the player, and two other South Americans (Alvarez and Melono) who came alongside him. Yet the headline figure was the one that got used (and misused!) to represent the "cost" of the player. So yes, you may find that the costs of Christian Maghoma and Darren Ward who replaced him are being factored in, in which case I'd see that as double accounting, as we'd have needed to have budgeted for at least one of those players from the start of the season.
17/06/2016 15:31:03

Cruncher said ...

Gut instinct makes me wonder that this is a contrived tale of woe before some club news about development plans or similar. Shouldn't be so cynical, but hey.
17/06/2016 16:23:25

Mario said ...

I was surprised that Arthurworrey was not substituted in the game against Coventry in the League Trophy when he seemed to get injured, but had to carry on playing: perhaps it would not have made any difference, but if he had not carried on playing in that game (and the following ones when not fully fit) maybe his injury would not have got so bad: incidentally, Sturrock made no substitutions in that game when one would think it more important to look after all players for the League program than try to get a result in a minor competition.
17/06/2016 18:24:30

Sharpy said ...

If only John Fry understood the economiics of football management rather than looking for noteyity in land and property development. Two separate companies too many agendas!!!
17/06/2016 21:50:42

Dorset Phil said ...

I sorry but someone needs to keep control of the purse strings.
Gary Johnson had to ask to make signings so why was Sturrock given carte Blanche to loan him on such crazy terms.
I think the consensus from Town fans is we want permanent signings ahead of loans. Several quality are good but how many in the past are mediocre.
A Webster in defence, an Upson in midfield or a Madden up front, what great players we've let go, would the money have been better spent keeping them and now so on permanent players.
For me loans are an easy option, if they don't work you can send them back but unless they have that personal drive (like Walsh) do most of them really have the heart.
Loans a sprinkling please but signings with heart for the team would be my preference Darren.
17/06/2016 22:56:43

Camberwick green said ...

Could this include a loan fee, an agent fee and travel & accommodation expenses?
18/06/2016 11:47:14

Paddy said ...

Fair point Mike. Excellent article. However I think sometimes are quick to challenge Fry's comments. I must admit the million pound investment one didn't help Fry's cause.
18/06/2016 18:57:11

SheFellOver said ...

Didn't Fry say somewhere that the club were paying around £250,000 for accommodation for players? Perhaps Arthurworrey needed a wing of Montacute House to be tempted down...
19/06/2016 10:37:47

Baige said ...

Could also have included his living expenses?
20/06/2016 00:32:32

Aroundtheworld withYeovil said ...

Come now - surely the explanation is obvious. John Fry and his figures rarely add up - remember those Directors who were putting £500k a year into the club except they weren't unless you valued their time at £500 per hour!
20/06/2016 01:18:29

Submit Your Own Comments

Name :

E-Mail :

Notify Me When Comments Are Added To This Article?

NOTE: Your name will appear against your comment, but your email address will not be displayed. It is only required in case we need to contact you. It will not be distributed to anyone outside Ciderspace.